>> i cannot remember the exact wording. i understand the issue, yes. >> in the amended charges, you stated he did participate in witness dissuasion. what caused you to make about definitive assertion? >> objection, attorney-client privilege. in and assumed facts that are not in evidence. >> what is the information that you learned since the original filing of the charges and the amended charges that caused you to make that definitive assertion? >> i will argument.

>> i would limit it to information he got from sources other than his lawyers. >> with that stipulation, the objection is overruled. >> could you restate the question with the limitation? >> without telling us anything that you learned from your lawyers, can you explain what is the basis for your assertion that the share of engaged in a witness dissuasion -- sheriff engaged in witness dissuasion? >> the review further of the declarations or the statements that were reflective of the videotape, and the declarations of the particular witness, ivory

madison. >> is it your assertion that sheriff mirkarimi somehow dissuaded ivory madison from speaking with the police? >> i believe he was part of the effort to not have people talk to the police department. including his wife. >> ok, what do you base that belief on? >> the declarations -- not declarations, but the transliteration of the videotape. >> you are talking about the one-minute videotape that miss lopez made with miss madison? >> yes. >> are there any other facts that you base that assertion on? >> objection, attorney-private -- attorney-client privilege. >> excluding conversations with your counsel. >> without limitation, the

objection is overruled -- with that limitation, the objection is overruled. >> the declarations of ivory madison. >> now, you have stated in your declaration that one of the reasons that was significant to you that this was official misconduct because a law enforcement officer must follow the law and enforce it, but sheriff mirkarimi pled guilty and was convicted of a crime. is it your belief that any time and law-enforcement officer is convicted of a crime, that constitutes official misconduct from which they must be removed? >> i believe it is significant

that being the sheriff of the city that engaged in an pleaded guilty to domestic violence is the wrongful behavior that constitutes official misconduct. >> ok, let me ask you. what if a deputy sheriff gets convicted of a crime? must they be removed from office? >> if it is similarly situated in similar circumstances, that would probably be the conclusion. >> ok. if you discovered there were deputies would then the san francisco at sheriff's department -- would that change your opinion?

>> not necessarily. >> you also say that because sheriff mirkarimi was sentenced to time served in county jail, and he is charged with overseeing prisoners in at the jail, that constitutes official misconduct, right? >> in the context of all the actions, yes. >> you are aware that this was a book and release procedure, where the share of surrendered, posted bail, and was immediately released? >> i am not aware of any difference of his arrest and any other arrests. it is still an official at arrest. >> are you aware that a former sheriff of san francisco spent five days in jail on a criminal contempt conviction and was not removed? >> objection, relevance. >> sustained. >> was it your belief after

you've reviewed these court records and there -- strike that, i am sorry. after use all that sheriff mirkarimi pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor, false imprisonment, did you do any additional investigation before you brought sheriff mirkarimi in to talk to you? >> yes. >> what did you do? >> i reviewed all of the court records that were available at the time from the court proceedings. >> did you speak -- seek to speak to any witnesses to that case? >> objection. deliberative process of privilege. in terms of to the mayor spoke with in regards to the case. >> you did ask that question earlier. you are asking --

>> did you seek to speak to any witnesses? i can narrow it. >> ok, i think, did you talk to any witnesses is ok. overruled. you may answer, mr. mayor. >> yes. >> which witnesses? >> ivory madison. >> objection. >> did you talk to lopez. >> same objection. >> i do not have a response because i have not had a chance to research the deliberative process privilege. it appears to be, a lot and got -- a common law and not statutory. the mayor has discussed talking

to sheriff mirkarimi and not anybody else. i think that is fair game. >> [unintelligible] where does it say that he did not speak to anybody else? >> i think that is inferred from the lack of mention of him speaking with anybody else. >> do you have any insight into whether the deliberative process privilege would apply here. >> the deliberative process privilege has -- applied by the california supreme court t-- certainly, that would be a useful analogy. i am not aware of any reported cases where it has been applied in a situation where charges were filed against someone.

i am not sure that as an important distinction. >> does it matter that the people the sheriff is asking about is not other officials? >> no. it was a request by the press to examine his appointment book. the issue was, the governor should be free to meet with whoever he wants to meet in order to make a policy decision outside or inside the government. >> the as the privilege -- is the privilege attached to the witness who spoke to the executive? does miss lopez, she is not bound by that privilege? >> not that i am aware of. >> ok, do any of the commissioners have views on this? >> i would like to address the waiver argument.

there is case authority for the proposition that unlike attorney-client privilege, that is not the case with deliberative process privilege. it is possible and desirable for an official to be able to discuss what they did in terms of reaching a decision without having to disclose everything they did and everyone they spoke to. the case law has held that there is note waiver simply because you have disclosed something about the decision making process that you went through. the american is entitled to disclose what he has disclosed what -- the mayor has -- is entitled to disclose what he has closed without being compelled to disclose the identities of everyone he spoke to. the case authority for that is

black forest products versus united states. -- blue forest products versus united states. it is a 2007 case. >> do you have anything else to say? >> its is hard to research this on the fly. >> i will sustain the objection. >> he met with the sheriff and ask him to resign, correct? >> i did meet with the sheriff, yes. >> he came with a lawyer from the sheriff's department, right? >> i believe he did come with somebody, yes. >> you decided that you did not want to have that person present. you wanted to meet with him one on one, correct? >> relevant. >> overruled. >> i asked him if he would come in by himself to talk with him. >> when you spoke with them, did he offer to make his wife

available to you so that you could speak with her before you made any decision on this matter? >> i do not recollect the exact words. i believe he made some assertion in that measure. >> did you ever speak with ms. lopez? >> no. >> ok. when you brought the sheriff in, your mind was made up? you were going to give him a choice -- either resign or we will file the written charges? >> i have determined the direction pass i gave him an opportunity to meet with me and talk with me. i had an opportunity to tell him what we were going to do and to give him some time to think about it. >> one day, right?

>> yes. >> is your testimony that when he came to meet with you, you had an open mind about what you were going to do? if he could persuade you that this kind that did not want him being removed from office, you might not have done that? >> i was open to listening to him. but i was also clear that i wanted to indicate to him what i was considering doing. >> ok. as of the day before you file the written charges, you had not decided what you were going to do? >> objection. misstated testimony. >> the witness can clarify. you may answer. >> can you read back the question? >> you had two meetings, one was

on one day and one was on the very next day, right? >> i had one meeting with the sheriff, and then i had another conversation with him on the telephone. >> were there not to meetings that both took place in your office? >> objection, vague. >> sustained. >> isn't true that you met with him on twa successive days in both meetings were in your office? >> objection, vague. >> do you understand what he is asking? >> i do not recall having two meetings, a physical meeting with mr. mirkarimi at the time.

>> your best memory is the first meeting was in person and the next time you talked to him was by telephone? >> that is correct. >> the second time, he told you he was not going to resign. >> that is correct. >> at that point, you had decided that you did not think sheriff mirkarimi was fit to be employed by the city of san francisco, right? >> at that time, i had come to a final conclusion that he had conducted himself with official misconduct and he had engaged in wrongful behavior. >> ok. did you ever extend an offer through a third-party that if he would resign, you would find him another job in the city? >> objection, relevance. >> where are you going with this? >> credibility. if he did not think it was unfit to be sure of, why would he be

fit for a city job? -- sheriff, why would he be fit for a city job? >> i will continue to object on the basis of relevance. many times there are problems that people try to resolve with compromise. that does not mean they do not believe there is a natural problem. >> -- actual problems. >> i understand your objection. the mayor has put at issue the reasons why. it is pretty close to the line, but i do think given that bases, it could go to bias. it is overruled. >> i do not recall offering mr. mirkarimi any job. >> you did not authorize anyone

to convey to sheriff mirkarimi that if he would step down, you would give him another job? >> absolutely not. >> i have no further questions. >> do you have any redirect? >> yes, i do, thank you. good afternoon, mr. mayor. when you said that the sheriff beat his wife in a recent interview, did you make a distinction in your mind between a little domestic violence and a lot of domestic violence? >> no, i did not. >> do you believe there is such a thing as just a little domestic violence? >> i came to the conclusion that he did commit domestic violence. he admitted to it. that is the conclusion that i

have. >> why did you not call eliana lopez? >> i did not believe that discussion with her had anything to do with the decision i was responsible to make with respect to official misconduct. >> why not? why do not need any further information from her? >> i believed that the record that was established to the courts, the criminal actions that were confirmed, the plea of guilty were enough to define the wrongful behavior for official misconduct. >> is it fair to say that you relied on his guilty plea instead of calling his wife? " sustained. >> what was the main criterion in your decision?

what was your main criterion when you reviewed the record any information that you had and decided that there was a reason to state a charge of official misconduct? >> the question i had was whether he actually did engage in criminal activity, whether he had perpetrated domestic violence on his spouse. he admitted to false imprisonment. >> what convinced you, if anything, that he had actually done these things? >> primary, his pleas to that charge. the acceptance of the sentencing that goes with it. >> did you understand his guilty plea to be an admission on his part that he actually did what was charged? >> [inaudible]

>> i am asking about his understanding. >> i will sustain its. >> what did you understand the plea to mean about his actual culpability? >> that he was the one that admitted to being guilty of the charge of false imprisonment. that he caused the bruising on her body. >> do you have an understanding, mr. mayor, or an expectation of the relationship between a guilty plea and a factual guilt? >> [inaudible] >> overruled. coaxed a guilty plea is the admission -- >> a guilty plea is

the admission. >> you have been criticized for not calling eliana lopez. it has been noted in the declaration that you did not complete a full investigation before you brought charges. is there a reason why you were prepared to bring charges when you did? >> overruled. >> i waited for the whole criminal prosecution to complete itself. as i said earlier, out of respect for mr. mirkarimi and the judicial process, i waited

for the full conclusion. and then asked to make sure that i had the complete record and reviewed what i could in order to make that determination. >> was there any reason why you did not also conduct your own full investigation? >> i believe the court process established that was sufficient to confirm the ron paul behavior. -- wrongful behavior. >> why didn't you suspend sheriff mirkarimi with pay? >> i believe that that position requires someone who is working, and in order for that person -- the city to pay that person. if that person is not permitted

to work, and it as a result of these circumstances, i felt necessary to suspend without pay. >> why didn't you treat him as innocent until proven guilty? >> because he had already pleaded guilty to this charge. the court confirmation of this was the conclusion. >> mr. kopp mentioned, and you agreed earlier, that there are some political issues between you and my boss. is see your political ally? it was seat -- i will withdraw that. was the city attorney your political ally in the last election? >> i do not think so. [laughter]

>> are you planning on suspended -- suspending dennis and bringing charges of official misconduct because he was not your ally in the last election? >> [inaudible] >> sustained. >> do you think you are more prone to bringing official misconduct charges against people who are not your political allies? >> [inaudible] >> overruled. >> no. >> a sheriff is a department head in san francisco, is that correct? >> yes. >> is there any department head of any department who could plead guilty to domestic

violence and not be removed for official misconduct? >> [inaudible] >> you asked the same types of questions. i will overrule that. >> i would find that that would be a serious enough charged to fulfil official misconduct, certainly wrongful behavior. >> in the department head? >> that is correct. >> would you -- did you have any special concerns of any sort of the department heads in question who had pled guilty to a charge of domestic violence was the share of -- sheriff? >> i think there is added significance because it is one of the top to law enforcement positions in the city. -- top two law enforcement positions in the city.

>> can you say more about how that is significant in your view? >> one of the more disturbing aspects of this is my knowledge that the sheriff is in charge of responsibilities with respect to domestic violence victims. it has historically been a very strong program in the city of san francisco. shared by several various departments to do their part to prevent and to respond to and to encourage witnesses to come forward in an effort to end domestic violence. the sheriff's department is the key to those various agencies that have that responsibility. and for the sheriff himself to be confirmed as engaged in this is significant.

>> do you believe you should lead by example, mr. mayor? >> yes, clearly. >> do you believe that part of leading by example is showing the power of redemption? >> that is certainly something i have learned. >> couldn't you model redemption by dropping the official misconduct charges against sheriff mirkarimi and giving him a second chance? >> i came to the conclusion of official misconduct because i believe that the actions that were admitted to and the crime that was perpetrated has to have direct consequences.

i believe strongly that a direct consequence is that you cannot be sheriff of this city if you are guilty of domestic violence. >> a do you think he is ready for a second chance from u.s. the decision maker? >> -- from you as the decision maker? >> [inaudible] >> sustained. >> does the sheriff have any duty to work together with the mayor? >> yes. >> in light of the events that have transpired since you brought the official misconduct charges and the discourse that has been -- let me back up. are you aware of any statements

that have been made about you in the press by the sheriff or his attorneys? >> [inaudible] >> i am laying a foundation. >> i will allow that. >> som. >> have they been friendly assertions? >> i do not believe so. cops are they the sorts of the a search -- >> are they the sorts of assertions you believe you could get past and rebuild our relationship with the sheriff? >> it would be extremely difficult. >> one last question, mr. mayor. in terms of official misconduct charges, are you the decision maker in the process, the ultimate decision maker about whether he should be removed? >> [inaudible]